I ai in the series to create comment on hard facts of energy generation on a developed countries grid that is most affordabe, sustainable, adequate=as much as we need to replace fossil use, affordable at today's levels or less.
I am an experienced electrical engineer, and physicist, my first degree is physics and my professional speciality electrical engineering. After a 17 t year career in these areas I took a Manchester MBA and worked in leading roles in related technology business for 30 years, so I can do the science, create technologies that deliver profits a by doing what they promise in the real world, and do the maths on technical and economic viability. None of this is hard, and easy to check for yourself on the facts.
I will both create and share some core practical and basic scientific and quantitative truths regarding energy use, its future sources and the major impact on the economy and the global climate of not vigorously pursuing nuclear power ASAP, the forecast impact having started over the two years this blog was developed with our increasing economic dependence on increasingly expensive foreign oil and food, as with many things its about the economy, and its long term protection from short term stupid contingencies based on irrational thought for political convenience. The ima[pct on UK plc in the short term of the next ten years is about £3B pa in the excess costs of wind power over nuclear or gas, the costs will get much higher as fossil fuel prices rise and we have no more room for variable "alternatives" and have delayed nuclear build, the cheapest form of power generation all included and zero carbon, in favour of short term alternatives.
My aim is to set out the fundamental drivers and scale them, so people can be informed of the macro level picture , understand the real key factors for themselves, and check the key facts with their own research if they wish. For those happy to use referenced data from reputable sources the work of H.Douglas Lightfoot in Canada provided me with all the backup I needed and saved me from duplicating the work. He was published after academic inspection by McGill University and offers by far the broadest and most objective of any source I have found. So I have focussed on the logical case, defining and classifying the key factors as I go. Check my assertions at any time by downloading and reviewing the referenced material.
The important point is nuclear power is the uniquely solution to long term sustainable base load power. There isn't another one unless you have substantial hydro. Without that you are dependent for your economic survival on fossil fuel bought from foreign suppliers in an open market as escalating prices as the finite supplies dwindle under the burden of bringing only 2 Billion people from LDC to DC status in at least China and India, more than doubling demand in a few decades. This will destroy our economic competitiveness, which requires adequate affordable energy to function at all, and to protect our environment. Nuclear is the only base load generation that is zero carbon, so saves the planet as a side effect of economic survival in an energy rationed world.
I want to set out logic and fact versus the distorted subjective propaganda which delays the inevitable move to nuclear, and diverts investment into palliatives offered as the answer but which in generating physics reality don't have the capacity to deliver substantive alternative power, never mind a solution, and risk our economic and environmental future through misplaced complacency by inadequate preparation for the demise of fossil fuel, whenever that occurs. Ceratinly not as sson as dister forecasting machinery of gpovernment predicts to suport its alternative lobbyist fraud by law, on the generation facts.
The impact of dismissing nuclear powers position as the only long term source of adeqaute base load power once fossil fuel is exhausted or uneconomic is catastrophic, if it lasts too long.
Nuclear is also the only viable base load generation, other than hydro, with near zero operational carbon footprint. So bringing it into the mix alongside fossil should start now, There are designs for 3rd generation power stations waiting to be built, it takes 10 years here, 5 in ChHina for the same thing.
However most proponents for such objective positions and inconvenient truths are deliberately starved of media publicity, the media preferring specialised interest groups debating with unqualified media interviewers on narrow/partial and poorly understood agendas, accepting received opinion on supposed solutions which often have a pathetically small impact on the overal energy supply position - its never put in the perspective of the overall macro energy economy. Green debaters fill valuable airtime with inconsequential and often disinformation presented as fact, while short termist politicians and lobbyist enrgy company CEOs and their bankers, who do know* the inevitability of the future, exploit the lack of education and hence understanding of the masses at the expense of the planet's future for their own selfish short term political objectives, monetary gain, or both, hoping things don't go badly wrong on their watch.
While I have been creating this blog the process has actually started, with energy and food prices starting on the exponential curve from which there will be no return, emrgncy generators being gathered as the coal fired capacity is being turned off by EC law with no capable alternative. Rewables certainly can't replace the coal they depend on being there to push expensively push off to claim their subsidies the 30% of the time they are working. And the fossil wil run out sometime, in spite of the few decades of shale gas we have in the UK. Lets d say there are 2 Billion more people wanting it at our useage levels versus the 1 Billion or so who currently monopolise it. Go figure. Exact time uncertain, outcome inevitable. Better be powered by something sustainable, that we control, that will more than power our predicted economic demands. That's nuclear - fission and fusion.
You will find the major facts supporting this position at a macro level are clear and obvious, and checkable by a numerate High School student with th physics basics. Reality is occasionally recognised by governments but not publicised by the media when it is, it doesn't fit media's agendas for instant news or confrontation, although it could* IF they were fact based. The BBC is a particularly bad science denier as far as generation is concerned. A propagandist for green religion based on clear dceit regarding the facts of generation.
The consequences of what is now in train require action and investment over more than one generation, so are of no interest to those shallow politicians and short term capitalists at the head of civil or corporate power groups, or selfish voters - the issue is a short term vote loser and a cost without benefit in the current parliamentary term, so leaving the problem to get worse until the consequences bit will be cause major reversals in properity for generations it takes to recover - if we can still afford it. And the problems will not happen upon us gradually. When the problems come they will come fast, on a exponential curve which is already starting, but the infrastructure we need in response takes decades to build. This has to be led and guarateed by a fact based enrgy programe the state supports, private sector cannot deliver our enrgy solution with state gauarntees and policy support for what everyone knows can work.
*Tony Blair, after a report on energy options for the UK, to the CBI in 2006 "The choices are stark"...."nuclear power is back on the agenda with a vengeance". A crucial statement for the future of UK plc. Not heard of since, but at least reflected in the barriers to construction being lowered by the current UK regime.
The self styled experts (really not, narrow and partisan) and their mouthpieces mislead the public in or on the media on the crucial matter of the long term survival of modern society, mostly knowingly, backed by those with the power to support and publicise their convenient views, for their own profit and other personal gain, at all our expenses.. The discussion of power generation and alternatives is presented in a partial manner with unchallenged assumptions when they favour the case to be put, with totally uninformed assertions about alternatives (good) and nuclear power (bad), no differentiation between clean low carbon gas and dirty hig carbon coal, and high carbon CO2 simply labelled "renewable" so that's OK, etc. The interviewer usually has inadequate expertise to challenge a wave of unsupported assertions the asserter doesn't understand either, or they are BBC and under orders to supportv renewables as the solution to camlitous man made climate change, a BBC canon. So they both stick to a group think script based on ignorance, the blind leading the blind.
As well as setting out the major obvious distortions I will set out the simple and major steps that will deliver a sustainable development of global civilisation and avoid reducing the planet to the consequences of the greenhouse effect and polarisation of rich and poor states - as energy and water rationing by price and power escalate.
Here is the news:
In short the macro economics and the realities of power generation make nuclear power from fusion and fission the quickest and eventually only way to generate base load power for a substantial industrialised economy, which relies on energy use for its wealth and very existence.
We only rose to our current level of civilisation when we moved from sustainable wood burning to fossil fuel in the 1800s.
Wind, water, solar power is incredibly low density. Fossil fuel concentrated solar energy over millions of years so provides a much denser enrgy source, but once used its gone and we need another intense controllable source, nuclear fission and fusion is all there is..
We CAN go back to alternatives and sustainable - if we return society to early 1800s levels of prosperity, health care, education, public services, mobility and opportunity, of course. And with the resulting reduction in sustainable population, a proportion probably occuring naturally through disease. Put back the clock 200 years.
Or we can build nuclear power and develop fusion faster than planned to ensure an adeqaute enrgy supply. fusion works now at Culham in the UK and elsewhere BTW. There are badly funded plans for the next two stages with a view to production power on 2035 in France from JET via ITER to DEMO. The Chinese, Russian's and Indian's all contribute, however, and they are rational about maintaining adequate energy supplies for their developed economies, and have enough state control to build what works best, not what delusional pressure groups believe should work.
As its zero carbon nuclear electricity is guilt free when used for charging electric city cars and replacing gas for heating and cooking, etc. But there will need to be structural change. Fossil fuel powered communities will be largely unsustainable.
We may have to live in larger higher density cities connected by high speed trains where fuel for transport becomes scarce and only electric mass transit is affordable, or allowed, to conserve liquid fuels for flight and remote area vehicular access. We can also synthesise liquid fuels from atmospheric carbon and water, if we have enough CO2 in the atmosphere.... Zero carbon cars are easy to do and being built now. Its a question of will to deliver the infrastructure and vehicular development. And this only makes sense when electricity is abundant, cheap and nuclear generated (i).
(i) Electric cars charged from fossil fuels create more pollution at a typical inefficient US power station power station than a regular petrol engined equivalent and even Hybrid cars are largely pointless once the cost and complexity of the alternative part is factored in, they use the petrol engine above 10mph and really serve us best through superior gas mileage of their small efficient petrol engines on the highway vs. totally wasteful and pointless SUV alternatives.
Large freighters will need to be nuclear powered, using existing power plant technology as with Russian ice breakers and military aircraft carriers.
WHEN? The reserves of fossil fuel will run out sooner rather than later with the doubling in their use.
They are finite.
c. 2 Billion people in SE Asia alone are moving two decades (x100) up in economic activity - up the GDP curve - which directly correlates with their energy use which will increase at the same sort of rate, x100. The developed world is probably less than 1B people currently. Figure out the demands on energy and resulting greenhouse gas output for yourself.
That roughly means well over a doubling of global fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or 10 tears either side as they match the West's use, if we set that date as the target, its certainly not a few percent per annum the West thinks in terms of.
Conservation targets on our current levels and alternatives are all playing at the edges without a program to go nuclear ASAP. Woefully inadequate kidology.
Conservation is worthy, as are alternatives, but simply buy a little time to the day when base load has to come from elsewhere, which will arrive with exponential suddenness - as resources dwindle while demand rises.
Will we have the resolve to be ready or fail to act and take a dive back to the past as our supplies become unavailable and/or unaffordable?
****** That's the challenge our short termist leaders face. **********
While reserves dwindle prices will go higher and higher, so economic survival will eventually drive energy dependent Western economies towards nuclear.
Finally its really the only controllable base load power other than hydro with no significant operational carbon footprint so the sooner we get started the less likely dramatic climate change is.
Nuclear power is needed ASAP, nothing else can provide the controllable base load power requirements while reducing greenhouse gasses fast enough - there are no greenhouse gasses from Nuclear and its VERY efficient and compact.
So what about nuclear issues?
The waste and disposal issues are exaggerated by opponents. For next generation plants waste is much reduced and lessened in half life (decay time). As we have no choice, we better spend money to clean up and solve the problem, its money that's stopped us so far, not technology.
1. Alternative sources - outside of special cases with loads of all year hydro - convert the Sun's power in real time so lack energy density as well as predictabily as above so are are quite inadequate to provide a major proportion of our power, and none of its base load (generation we control not the weather, tide or water level).
Because the power is unpredictable and of low power density per unit of generating capacity it can only offset a few 10's of percent of base load, even with the country covered with giant eyesore windmills and tidal barrages at huge cost. Its lack of predictability also means fossil power stations have to be kept running but not connected to the grid in case the source weakens. The first inconvenient truths.
NB: It would take 1,000 of the biggest 1 MWatt windmills to generate the output of just one modern power station, nuclear, gas, or coal. A line from London to Edinburgh.
2 Nuclear Generation Risk: The risk argument against nuclear is totally oversold and outdated, also misleading and irresponsible compared to more polluting AND radioactive waste producing alternatives like coal.
Coal fired stations, as currently planned for China and the US as the best new generation solution, created 100 times more radioactivity in their waste and emitted 4 times more to the environment than equivalent nuclear power stations in 1987*. The waste figure must still be true, emissions have reduced.
Coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels with many impurities refined in the combustion process. Most of the emitted pollutants are trapped in chimney scrubbers now but the ash produced still contains the same large quantities of Uranium 238 and Thorium, also U-235, the material of the Hiroshima bomb - tons per annum for a large coal fired national system. The ash is even refined to produce fuel for nuclear plants, and maybe other uses in less controlled countries.
For the short term interests of capitalists regulation of these coal fired greenhouse gas producing isotope refining facilities is far less than that applying to cleaner nuclear plants - which is what makes them cheaper and quicker - so attractive to politicians for a quick fix and the banks for a fast buck at the expense of the environment.
Finally, taken as a whole, a coal fired power plant produces three times the level of radioactive waste than does an equivalent nuclear plant.
* The US NCRP are the authors of the above study.
Isn't it strange how little publicity this side of coal fired generation receives?
ON OPERATIONAL SAFETY: Modern Fission power stations are engineered to make the kind of accidents of first generation Cherbonyl, Windscale and Three Mile Island impossible with automated shut down shut down as well as operating procedures that either bar or terminate operation in the case of potentially dangerous actions.
And of the above three incidents the containments at Three Mile Island and Windscale worked. Only Cherbonyl breached. It was exceptional as it used a graphite core which can burn, normally used only in research reactors. The others didn't. Chernobyl was deliberately run out of limits by a management regime which is no longer possible by regulation and prevented by automatic shut down procedures. So actually thr record is pretty good. One serious total loss, caused by the wrong technology run by madmen. The rest contained.
ON PROLIFERATION: More rubbish talked about this by head in the sand environmentalist with parochial and naive opinions, not facts. Most of the current rich major greenhouse gas polluters are well policed countries who can both manage security and more than adequate safety for nuclear waste disposal - once they decide to invest in it.
Its not the technology, we have multiple disposal technologies, but a lot of waste that has been stockpiled as someone else's problem so the core spent fuel disposal problem keeps getting harder to bite.
One solution is to actually use some of the waste as fuel for next generation reactors, and so reduce further it while getting power from it.
Safe storage of the waste there is is very doable using recoverable but secured solutions in stable strata. Better to have the problem stored away retrievably to deal with later than no civilisation left to deal with it. One way is to use it as fuel in next generation reactors once the technology is available.
We have the technology. Its the money to pay to develop and deliver these processes that is needed. Survival will be expensive, but so was getting where we are. We can't live off Victoriana for ever, its time to start rebuilding for the 22nd Century. And it will soon get a whole lot more expensive to carry on as we are.
Export of nuclear technology is also possible IF an IAEA friendly major Western State supplier manages the fuel supply and replacement. Not building such technology is really stupid NIMBY green logic. If we don't less responsible nations will, and sell them without the controls on refuelling and processing we would require.
So we owe it to our fragile democracies (vs. command driven superpowers) to ensure that nuclear power which is used in less developed resourceless states is best controlled - by supplying it ourselves.
The business will also be good, the West need to lead in atomics, not pass the technology development to China and India - who are interested and investing in this option, without all the irrational green hand wringers and voters we have to worry about.
The truth is we can avoid the coming crises only if the developed world accepts the realities of the steps we must take to survive, and focuses on their delivery, versus topical palliatives like alternative energy and electric cars which at best delay the inevitable disaster a few more years without the big base load programs, at worst make things worse by delaying action and diverting attention and funding from the underlyiing core actions that are required.
The days of doing these things because they are easy and profitable and avoiding them because they are difficult, are over. As Tony said, the choices are stark.
Sadly the only conviction politicians are the ones in jail, the rest are reactive populist lobby fodder for the establishment's democratic veneer - or on a personal gravy train if in positions of influence.
Doubt this? If they were interested in the futire of the nation they would be out there with these inconvenient truths. The top people all know. The lobby fodder letter writers (MPs) may not know themselves - but they are paid to employ qualified advisors - so can know - so are negligent or irresponsible on such a crucial issue for their constituents.
Again most of their confusion comes from the technically untrained repeating incorrect received wisdom they are not trained understand the basics of, the country doesn't like people who understand technology - ologists , arts and law degrees seem preferred in politics.
Others simply take positions for personal, commercial or political short term gain - be they CEO or Head of State, self important or just irrational and mad environmentalists - none of them have the long term interests of their country continuing to live in a modern civilisation at heart.
Those who understand and can judge the actual solutions do not have a voice, many are not natural communicators and are anyway stopped from having one by the politicians, industry and the media who simply ignore inconvenient reality, ask inane and irrelvant questions they then expect rational answers to, and will not give a platform to issues they don't sponsor.
All these interest groups will bury rational truth and fact in partial obsfurcation and diversion onto palliative solutions and snake oil remedies, easily deliverable and more likely to bring them votes/power or personal gain during their time in office .
This will further delay the eventual delivery of large scale long term solutions, all of which will take longer than these people's time horizons, but not much longer - done right and started soon. Its far too important for politicians, and not a political judgment if we want to survive, its just obvious, but politicians have the money required to create the solutions.
So they are the people we all have to influence by getting the real issues on their agenda.
To those without the training /education to judge what is real or not this may all seem too difficult - when really the basics are straightforward. Its not hard.
I am have tried here to set it out so even a politician can understand it and not be able to deny it, you and they can check the facts that undperpin it for themselves and compare it to the spin pushed out through a compliant media to make judgements on who they believe - rather than listen to pundits promulgating received wisdom they don't understand.
The overall objective is starkly obvious - to maximise greenhouse gas reduction by moving as fast as possible to low or zero carbon sustainable, available, deployable, clean power .
It can be done using nuclear and sustainable renewables in pased programs which are easily supported by available information and technology and almost certainly deliverable in time, if started now and given more support than that given to date.
I will start by giving the conclusions and go on to explain each key area in a way you can decide for yourself. You can check any of the key assertions on Wikipedia, or the more studious can go and look up the source documents on which this is based.
So here are the key facts, you can argue detail percentages, but they are inescapable facts. If they are not obvious to you check them out, I've made it easy for you.
FACT 1. Fossil fuel will run out.
FACT 2. The faster we consume it:
- the more the competition for it,
- the greater the gap between the haves and have not states and
The consequences are the greenhouse effect causes potential shifts of population and the inevitable wars to follow, both highly probable and likely to precipitate a reversal in the current development of civilisation towards an equitable level of survival for all humanity long term.
The meek will inherit nothing, the strong will take the remaining water, oil, coal, etc. as mass territorial migrations take place - generally invasion/annexation by the powerful but threatened of the countries of the less threatened and less powerful. People in the form of Nation States don't like to share what they have with those less fortunate, and those less fortunate with military power and no choices will take what they need.
Think about it... nasty and could happen, and avoidable by spending far less than the cost of one significant war.
Generally it would be a good thing to head off global warming ASAP. Cna we not afford to do our very best and the strong nations apply their economic power to fast track solutions and avoid the confrontations that global warming will bring about.
**** That means getting to sustainable renewables ASAP through a regime which reduces the need for fossil fuel consumption in the interim.
Obvious so far?
That's not what is happening. They are all foot dragging and messing around at the edges of the issues. All the money is going into the low level alternatives and PC solutions de jour which actually make things worse instead of investing in the major programmes needed.
The basic needs are simple and but not well understood or promoted because their understanding is limited in a technically unsophisticated population whose inability to judge commentators is taken advantage of by paid"experts" - who are simply making up plausible stories for whatever short term gain those paying them require.
Here is the news: We need:
1. 2nd Generation Nuclear Fission power program ASAP, and Nuclear Fusion generation development (already working since 1997 BTW) to be fast tracked to create renewable clean base load energy within 50 years without greenhouse gases.
2. A serious attack on over consumption by un-necessarily large vehicles and inefficient power stations. Consumers will tend to maximise their efficiency in competitive markets, oligopolistic monopoly generators don't, particularly where the law is deliberately lax to allow the people in power and utility owners to profit during their tenure of office, as in the US, and where the state encourages irresponsible development with highly polluting power stations in the race to industrialise, as in large developing countries.
3. Maximising of supplementary alternative sources where they make sense for local use or to supplement the grid where appropriate (e.g. tidal with pumped storeage and Hydro), wind and wave power for unpredictable local and grid supplements, buffered using pump storage or similar. Also the use of direct solar heating of water etc at the individual housing unit level to yet further reduce the load on the grid.
nb: None of these normally represent a substantial steady proportion of overall demand power generation, but cumulatively they are a way to substantially lower the base load requirement from mainstream fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, saving fossil fuel and/or reducing the need for new fission plants.
In my next blog I will go into the logic and some of the detail of the above and attempt to debunk all the PC nonsense sheltering under the banner of going green and pushing solutions that actually make things worse, vs. investments that have the potential to bring drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption without real penalties to civilisation.
Here's a taster on consumption.
Great lie number 1.
LIE: Electric cars are more economic, cheaper to run and have a lower carbon footprint. Yes - if the power used to charge them is cleanly generated. If charging power is from a regular coal fired plant they actually create more greenhous gasses at the power plant than an equaivalent gasoline engine like for like and are promoted to gullible customers by car manufacturers and politicians using incomplete and distorted information designed to mislead for short term business and political gain.
TRUTH: Electric cars and related technologies will be great when we have power from non carbon burning generation like nuclear, until them they will make things worse in terms of carbon footprint.
ANOTHER DISTORTION: Forget Hybrids and expensive gadgets. Hybrids really only help under 10 mph in cities. Their bigger benefit is they don't have overlarge petrol engines for highway use.
If families used vehicles with engines appropriate for their needs then most could be driving Honda Civics at 40 mpg vs. SUVs at 10 mpg. More than enough power for city and highway.
A factor of 4 improvement in carbon footprint from gas burning with nothing new, just less selfish consumption by consumers.
etc.
We can't save the world but with a clear and well communicated understanding of what we face we can ensure UK plc's future energy supplies and make them zero carbon. Maybe influence others to do the same by example - and fear (we'll survive, you won't).
Brian
Labels: energy coal alternative fission fusion greenhouse renewables carbon AND footprint electric AND automobiles
